Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by DCHindley » Mon May 13, 2019 5:40 pm

Irish1975 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 10:05 am
2 Timothy 4:6 (Polycarp's Pauline forgery per Trobisch) has a minimal statement about Paul's end:
For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure[tes analuseos mou] is near.
One can read into that various things, as was probably the author's intent: that Paul was executed for preaching the gospel; that he was simply ill and on the verge of death; or (to suit the plan in Romans) that he "departed" Rome for Spain or somewhere else.

Interestingly, Irenaeus takes exactly the same evasive and ambiguous tack:

Irenaeus AH 3.1:
...while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us...
If anyone has the Greek of Irenaeus maybe they could check to see if the same verb is used.
Keep in mind that Book 3, chapter 1 (section 2) of Ireneaus' Against Heresies has only survived in Latin translation.

Post vero horum
Thereafter, indeed, of these,

excessum Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri,
flourished Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter

et ipse quae a Petro annuntiata erant,
and they were the same things preached by Peter,

per scripta nobis tradidit.
given to us in writing.

DCH

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 13, 2019 6:19 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:40 pm
Keep in mind that Book 3, chapter 1 (section 2) of Ireneaus' Against Heresies has only survived in Latin translation.

Post vero horum
Thereafter, indeed, of these,

excessum Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri,
flourished Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter

et ipse quae a Petro annuntiata erant,
and they were the same things preached by Peter,

per scripta nobis tradidit.
given to us in writing.
So far as actual manuscripts are concerned, yes, this is true. But Eusebius has the Greek for this passage in History of the Church 5.8.2a: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν ("but, after the departure of these men, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also himself delivered to us in writing the things preached by Peter"). Latin excessus = "departure," representing the Greek ἔξοδος (cognate with our word "exodus").
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 » Mon May 13, 2019 7:06 pm

Thanks, DCH and Ben.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by DCHindley » Mon May 13, 2019 8:35 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 6:19 pm
DCHindley wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:40 pm
Keep in mind that Book 3, chapter 1 (section 2) of Ireneaus' Against Heresies has only survived in Latin translation.

Post vero horum
Thereafter, indeed, of these,

excessum Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri,
flourished Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter

et ipse quae a Petro annuntiata erant,
and they were the same things preached by Peter,

per scripta nobis tradidit.
given to us in writing.
So far as actual manuscripts are concerned, yes, this is true. But Eusebius has the Greek for this passage in History of the Church 5.8.2a: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν ("but, after the departure of these men, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also himself delivered to us in writing the things preached by Peter"). Latin excessus = "departure," representing the Greek ἔξοδος (cognate with our word "exodus").
Ahhh,

well, that explains the comma after excessus in Harvey's text. All Google Translate will give me is "excess" so I took it as "flourished." That will teach me ... :scratch:

While exodos and excessus sound alike, are they really related? Ex-hodos I can see as (march out) but is that what excessus means too? My Latin-English Dictionary says to pass away. It is from Excedo, one of the meanings being to exceed, to go beyond. However, my Greek-English dictionary says one of the meanings of exodos is "like Lat. exitus, an end, close, close of life, decease."

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 13, 2019 9:11 pm

DCHindley wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:35 pm
While exodos and excessus sound alike, are they really related? Ex-hodos I can see as (march out) but is that what excessus means too? My Latin-English Dictionary says to pass away. It is from Excedo, one of the meanings being to exceed, to go beyond. However, my Greek-English dictionary says one of the meanings of exodos is "like Lat. exitus, an end, close, close of life, decease."
Only the prefixes are etymologically related (ex- and ἐξ- both mean "out" or "out of"), but the roots are of similar enough meaning to one another. Excessus comes from excedo (= ex + cedo = "to go out of"), while ἔξοδος is composed of ἐξ +‎ ὁδός (= "a way/road out of"). Given that a way/road is something by which one might go, one can see the conceptual similarity here. In both cases, obviously, a natural metaphorical extension (of the idea of departure or "going out") would be death, which is how most (but not all) scholars interpret the instance in question.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by John2 » Tue May 14, 2019 8:21 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 10:26 am
John2 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 9:48 am
I think Paul could be the Saul mentioned in Josephus (who lived at least up to 66 CE). Saul was related to the Herodians, as is commonly argued for Paul (e.g, Rom. 16:11: "Greet my kinsman Herodion"), and both were pro-Roman:

War 2.17.4:
So the men of power perceiving that the sedition was too hard for them to subdue, and that the danger which would arise from the Romans would come upon them first of all, endeavored to save themselves, and sent ambassadors, some to Florus, the chief of which was Simon the son of Ananias; and others to Agrippa, among whom the most eminent were Saul, and Antipas, and Costobarus, who were of the king's kindred; and they desired of them both that they would come with an army to the city, and cut off the seditious before it should be too hard to be subdued.
I agree that the author of Acts could have, and probably did, get his account of "Saul" from Josephus.
Cool. And it makes me wonder if that's why Acts doesn't say when Paul died, since Josephus doesn't say when Saul died. However, we could at least say that Paul lived up to at least 66 CE. And maybe Acts doesn't say anything about him returning to Jerusalem because of what Josephus says he did in Ant. 20.9.4 after mentioning the death of James (and thus after his conversion):
Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.
Show me something built to last.

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by John2 » Wed May 15, 2019 2:03 pm

Another element in favor of the Saul-is-Paul idea is that Paul characterizes his Jewish Christian opponents as "weak," like Josephus says that Saul had harassed "those who were weaker" than him, like in Rom. 14:1-2:
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions. For one man has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables.
And 1 Cor. 8:7-13:
But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that they eat such food as if it were sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you who are well informed eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged to eat food sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.


And it's interesting that this occurs in the context of food, since Saul's violence in Josephus against "those who were weaker" than him occurs in the context of food too in Ant. 20.8.8 (and bear in mind that the Saul in Acts is said to have used violence against Christians in Jerusalem in cahoots with the high priest, even if it isn't said to have been food-related):
And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice.
Part of the reason then these "poorest sort of the priests died for want" is because they were required by the Torah to be fussy eaters and live off of tithes and without which they starved.

Perhaps one could say that even after his conversion Paul had not entirely mellowed his attitude towards Jewish Christians who had Torah-related fussy diets like these priests (and some Jewish Christians were priests -and presumably poor ones- during this time according to Acts 6:7: "and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith"), even if he had stopped being violent towards them by then (if not towards people of other groups who were "weaker" than him, if he is Josephus' Saul). But in any event, whether Paul is Josephus' Saul or not, he still comes across to me as a bit of a bully to Jewish Christians with fussy diets he calls "weak." He at least still viewed their position as "weak" even if he was no longer being physically violent towards them. And contrast what he says in 1 Cor. 8 above with what the Jewish Christian-related Didache says:
Ch. 6: See that no one cause you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear all the yoke of the Lord [i.e., the Torah], you will be perfect; but if you are not able, what you are able that do. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on your guard; for it is the service of dead gods.
Show me something built to last.

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by John2 » Wed May 15, 2019 3:42 pm

And the Antioch incident is food-related too, and Paul uses an expression in relation to it ("works of the law") that is also (and only) found in the Dead Sea Scroll MMT, which, like Jewish Christians, appears to prohibit eating "food sacrificed to idols." As VanderKam and Flint and Dunn note regarding the expression "works of the law":
The phrase works of the law apparently occurs nowhere else in ancient writings other than once in MMT (C 26-27) and eight times in Paul's letters (in the Greek form erga nomou: Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16 [3 times], 3:2, 5, 10).

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... MT&f=false
That parallel [between MMT and Galatians] is indicated not only by the phrase 'works of the law', but by two other points of contact between MMT and Galatians ... The writers of MMT remind the addressees that 'we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people [and from all their impurity]' ... The letter itself is obviously intended at least in some measure to provide an explanation of why they had thus 'separated' themselves. The verb used is precisely equivalent to the verb used by Paul to describe the action of Peter, followed by the other Jewish believers, who 'separated himself' ... from the Gentile believers in Antioch, having previously eaten with them (Gal. 2:12-13). The point is that the attitude behind both 'separations' is the same ... in each case the primary concern on the part of the 'separatists' was their own purity: they 'separated' because they feared the defilement which would be contracted by associating with those who did not maintain the same degree of purity. In short, the motivation and theological rationale were the same in MMT and Antioch: that it was necessary for Torah-true, covenant-loyal Jews to separate themselves from impurity, whether the impurity of apostate Jews or the impurity of Gentiles. That is what Paul objected to.

The parallel extends to the idea of righteousness as dependent on observing such regulations: 'This will be "reckoned to you for righteousness" in doing what is upright and good before him' ... with the same echo of Gen. 15.6 which was central to Paul's reasoning on the subject (Gal. 3.6; Rom. 4.3-12). Clearly the letter writer(s) believed that those who followed Qumran's halakhoth would be 'reckoned righteous'; that is, they would be 'reckoned righteous by reference to their ma'ase hatorah', or, in the term used by Paul, they would be 'justified ex ergon nomou'. In both cases, that is to say, what was seen to be at stake by the separatists was their own righteousness/justification; their own righteousness/justification would somehow be imperiled by association with those who did not so understand and practice the Torah, that is, by the impurity of these others. And, once again, it is precisely that attitude and praxis to which Paul objects ...

What has proved so interesting about 4QMMT at this point is that it has used the very same phrase, 'the works of the law', in the very same way as does Paul in characterizing the attitude of Peter, and with the very same implication that such 'works of the law' were deemed by the observant to be necessary bulwarks to sustain and preserve their self-definition, their identity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJDKs ... on&f=false
I know this is getting a little off track, but it at least shows that what Paul says in Galatians is in keeping with pre-70 CE "fussy-eating" Judaism, and thus he arguably existed and perhaps even was Josephus' Saul and had lived up to 66 CE.

MMT (according to Vermes, Eisenman and Martinez):
[And concerning the offering of the wh]eat of the [Gentiles which they ...] and they touch it ... and de[file it ...One should not accept anything] from the wheat [of the Gen]tiles [and none of it] is to enter the Sanctuary ... And concerning the sacrifice of the gentiles ... [we consider that] they {sacrifice} to [an idol and] that is [like a woman fornicating with him].

https://books.google.com/books?id=hDuyz ... ls&f=false[./quote]
Now, [concerning the offering of gr]ain by the [Gentiles, who...] and they tou[c]h it... and render it im[pure... One is not to eat] any Gentile grain, nor is it permissible to bring it to the Tem[p]le ... Concerning sacrifices by Gentiles, [we say that (in reality) they] sacrifice to the i[dol that seduces them] ((therefore it is illicit).

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scro ... d06.htm#35
These are some of our regulations [concerning the law of G]od, which are pa[rt of] the precepts we [are examining and] they [a]ll relate to … and the purity of […] … [Concerning the offering of the] wheat of the Gen[tiles which they…] and they touch it […] and they defi[le it- you shall not eat it.] [None] of the wheat of the Gentiles shall be brought into the temple…. And concerning the sacrifice] which they cook in vessels [of bronze…] the flesh of their sacrifices and […] in the courtyard the […] with the broth of their sacrifices. And concerning the sacrifice of the Gentiles- [we say that they sacrifice] ...

http://cojs.org/miqzat_ma-ase_ha-torah- ... -martinez/
Show me something built to last.

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 » Wed May 15, 2019 3:58 pm

Are there other objections (besides Andrew's) to the suggestion that Paul wrote Romans 9-11 in response to the temple destruction? I think we have established that there is no actual evidence concerning the time (or even the place) of Paul's death.

Here I want to elaborate on chapters 9-11 and why I think it is Paul's response to 70 CE.

1) It cannot be denied that this is a major Pauline treatise, to which he devoted a great deal of thought and attention. We are not talking about one or two throw away lines, possibly interpolated, as with the interminable debates about 1 Thessalonians or Galatians or 1 Corinthians.

2) Why now does Paul have sorrow and unceasing anguish for his people? This concern never arises in his other letters. He has spent all his time preaching to gentiles. In no other letter that I recall does he fret over what will happen to those who reject the new covenant in favor of the old. Is there really no major historical world event prompting this discourse?

3) If the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome were the occasion of Romans 9-11, this would explain the epistle's depth and intensity. In a sense, Paul would be seeing in the events of 70 the validation of his gospel, his theology, his entire career as a prophet. Behold, God favors the gentiles and shames the followers of the circumcision.

4) Paul cites several scriptures that evoke war, conquest, e.g. "For the scripture says to pharaoh, 'I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.'" (9.17)

5) More language strongly suggesting a cataclysm--

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, God has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction..."(9:22)

"...for the Lord will execute his sentence on earth quickly and decisively..." (9:27)

prophets killed, altars demolished in Elijah's time (11:3)

"...the severity of God towards those who have fallen..." (11:22)

"...a hardening has come upon part of Israel..." (11:25)

"As regards [kata] the gospel, they [the hardened part of Israel] are enemies for your sake [dia umas],
but as regards [kata] election, they are beloved, for the sake of [dia] the patriarchs" (11:28)

6) If 13:1-6, the infamous divine right of kings passage, is genuine Paul, and composed at the same time as 9-11, it makes sense that Paul would have written it in response to Rome's triumph. It's extreme and unequivocal language has few other explanations.

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by John2 » Wed May 15, 2019 4:28 pm

2) Why now does Paul have sorrow and unceasing anguish for his people? This concern never arises in his other letters. He has spent all his time preaching to gentiles. In no other letter that I recall does he fret over what will happen to those who reject the new covenant in favor of the old. Is there really no major historical world event prompting this discourse?

3) If the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome were the occasion of Romans 9-11, this would explain the epistle's depth and intensity. In a sense, Paul would be seeing in the events of 70 the validation of his gospel, his theology, his entire career as a prophet. Behold, God favors the gentiles and shames the followers of the circumcision.

4) Paul cites several scriptures that evoke war, conquest, e.g. "For the scripture says to pharaoh, 'I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.'" (9.17)

Does it have to be 70 CE though? Could not what Paul says apply as well to any of the years of the 66-70 CE war, or even any time between 6 CE and 70 CE, given how Josephus characterizes the consequences of the Fourth Philosophy in Ant. 18.1.1?
All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men ... whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men ... a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire.

And I would suppose that Paul would be more explicit about something like the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Even Jesus in Mark is more explicit about it.

Mk. 13:1-2:
As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look at the magnificent stones and buildings!”

"Do you see all these great buildings?” Jesus replied. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be toppled.”
Show me something built to last.

Post Reply